Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

10/15 Richard Charnin Midterms Forecast: MSM's Likely Voter Polls Preparing the Cover for GOP Fraud

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 12:24 AM
Original message
10/15 Richard Charnin Midterms Forecast: MSM's Likely Voter Polls Preparing the Cover for GOP Fraud
Edited on Mon Oct-18-10 01:23 AM by tiptoe
Richard Charnins 2010 Midterm House and Senate Forecast Models: RV/LV Polls and Election Fraudbit.ly/dakW23

Richard Charnin (TruthIsAll)source: http://richardcharnin.com/2010ElectionForecastModels.ht...

October 15, 2010

As we get closer to Election Day, we see a familiar pattern developing. The incessant media mantra is that the GOP is headed for a blowout win in the House with an outside chance of winning the Senate.

Pre-election polls all interview registered (RV) voters; likely voter (LV) polls are a sub-sample based on a likely voter cutoff model (LVCM). But the widely-followed realclearpolitics.com and other election sites show only the LV samples. The RV listings are being phased out. It happens in every election cycle.

CNN/Time provides 16 Senate RV polls (Democrats lead by 7.7%) with the corresponding LV subsets (Democratic 1.1% margin). But RCP only shows the LVs.

The latest 10 Generic polls listed at RCP are LVs. The GOP has a 1.9% lead in the latest 15 Generic RV polls and a 6.6% margin in 22 LV polls.
In 2010, 39 of the 163 polls listed are Rasmussen LVs in which the GOP leads by 8.1%. The GOP leads by just 2.3% in the other 124 polls.
Apparently RCP believes that Rasmussen is a non-partisan pollster, since he is included in the RCP average of non-partisan affiliated polls.

RCP displays two 1883-sample Gallup LV Generic polls. The GOP leads by 53-41 in the high turnout model and by 56-39 in the low turnout model.
The full 3000-sample RV is not shown (GOP by 47-44). The Democrats have a 48-35% margin among the 1118 RV respondents who did not pass the Gallup LVCM.

Not a single Zogby Generic 2010 poll has been listed by RCP. The latest Zogby LV shows a 45-45 tie.

The House and Senate forecast models (below) provide a comprehensive analysis of Registered Voter (RV) and Likely Voter (LV) polls. The assumption is that the election is held today.



October 8House and Senate Forecast Summary

Average Poll Share
Dem
Projected Share (%)
Simulated Seat Proj
WinProb


Senate
Weighted Average
RV (14) & LV (23)
LV only
Diff
Unweighted Average
RV sample
LV sub-sample
Diff

House
Latest Generic Polls
RV
LV
Diff
Total

2010 Generic Polls
Non-Rasmussen
Rasmussen (LV)
Diff
Total
Polls


37
37
-

16
16
-



15
22
-
37


124
39
-
163
Dem
%

45.3
43.5
1.8

48.3
46.3
2.1



44.0
40.9
3.1
42.2


43.2
37.1
6.1
41.7
GOP
%

44.3
47.2
(2.9)

40.6
45.2
(4.6)



45.9
47.5
(1.6)
46.8


45.5
45.2
(0.2)
45.4
Spread
%

1.0
(3.7)
4.7

7.7
1.1
6.6



(1.9)
(6.6)
4.7
(4.6)


(2.3)
(8.1)
5.8
(3.7)
Dem
%

50.5
48.1
2.3

53.8
50.5
3.3



49.1
46.7
2.3
47.7


48.9
45.9
2.9
48.2
GOP
%

49.5
51.9
(2.3)

46.2
49.5
(3.3)



50.9
53.3
-2.3
52.3


51.1
54.1
(2.9)
51.8
Dem


52.9
49.8
3.1

10
7
3



212
201
10
206


211
198
13
208
GOP


45.1
48.2
(3.1)

4
8
(4)



223
234
(10)
229


224
237
(13)
227
GOP


0%
10%
-

2 tie
2 tie
-



73%
98%
-
94%


74%
99.6%
-
88%

Registered and Likely Voter Polls

The Senate model employs simulation analysis of the latest RV and LV polls to forecast average GOP net gains, associated win probabilities and trends. The built-in sensitivity analysis displays the effects of various undecided voter allocation and vote-switching scenarios.

The House model provides a summary comparison of the latest RV and LV Generic polls, win probabilities and a moving average projection. As in the Senate model, the sensitivity analyses display the effect of various undecided voter and vote-switching assumptions on forecast vote shares, House seats and win probabilities. The 2010 summary table illustrates the wide difference between Rasmussen and other pollsters. The 2006-2010 Generic Poll table provides a historical context.

Democrats always do better in the full RV sample than in the LV sub-sample (see the LVCM model below). LV polls exclude millions of registered voters who actually vote and most of them are Democrats. In addition, millions of votes are cast but never counted in every election and most of them are Democratic as well. The good news is that proliferation of electronic voting has reduced the uncounted vote rate. The bad news is that votes can be switched, stuffed or dropped at the voting machine and/or the central tabulator where they are counted.

Polling websites generally display only Senate LV polls. CNN/Time has provided both RV and LV samples, but only the LVs are listed at realclearpolitics.com. The Senate RV model forecast is therefore a mix of RV and LV polls. Without a full corresponding RV poll for every LV sample, a comparable analysis is difficult.

Unlike the Senate, House Generic polls have been primarily RV samples (except for Rasmussen, which only provides LV sub-samples). But the ratio will shift to virtually all LVs as Election Day approaches.

The Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM)

In 2004, there were 22 million voters who did not vote in 2000. Nearly 60% of newly registered voters were Democrats for Kerry. In the 2006 midterms, a Democratic tsunami gave them control of both houses. In 2008, there were approximately 15 million new voters, of whom 70% voted for Obama. All pre-election polls interview registered voters. Likely Voter (LV) polls are a subset of the full Registered Voter (RV) sample. LV polls exclude most "new" registered votersfirst-timers and others who did not vote in the prior election.

Most pollsters use the Likely Voter Cutoff Model (LVCM), a series of questions regarding past voting history, residential transience, intent to vote, etc. Since students, transients, low-income voters, immigrant new voters, etc. are much more likely to give "No" answers than established, wealthier, non-transient voters, Republicans are more likely to exceed the cutoff than Democrats. A respondent who indicates yes to four out of seven questions might be down-weighted to 50% compared to one who answers yes to all seven.bit.ly/a8UYRb

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.

Pollsters Are Paid To Predict the Recorded Vote - Not the True Vote

The media/pollster drumbeat of a horse race is largely based on the LV polls. The focus on LV polls conditions the public to expect a recorded vote which in fact will surely understate the True Democratic share. The pollsters discount the RV sample, fully expecting that their LV projections will be a close match to a fraudulent recorded vote but they never mention the F-word. They know that votes are miscounted in every election. And so their final LV-based poll predictions are usually quite accurate. Pollsters are paid to predict the recorded votenot the True Vote.

As Election Day approaches, the MSM gradually phases out RV polls for LV polls which lowball the projected Democratic vote share. And so the general public is prepared for the fraudulent recorded vote-counts that the MSM knows are coming.

Since 2000, LV poll projections have closely matched recorded vote-count shares, while RV poll projections closely matched unadjusted and preliminary state and national exit polls. In each election, the final exit polls were "forced" to match the recorded vote-count. . In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Poll required impossible returning Bush voter turnout in order to match the recorded vote. Since pre-election LV poll predictions also matched the recorded vote, what can we conclude?

The media cites low Democratic enthusiasm in the 2010 midterms, but turnout will exceed the LV sub-sample. Unfortunately, most pollsters wont provide RV samples in the two weeks prior to the election. The media will gush on how close the final LV predictions came to the vote but ignore the real reason: systemic election fraud.

The Fraud Component

Historically, projections based on final pre-election LV polls underestimated voter turnout and yet closely matched impossible final exit polls and fraudulent recorded vote counts. Projections based on final pre-election RV polls (adjusted for undecided voters) were a close match to the unadjusted preliminary exit polls and the True Vote.

Pre-election Model:
Recorded vote share = LV poll projection = RV poll projection + Fraud component

Post-election Model:
Recorded vote share = Final Exit Poll = Unadjusted Preliminary Exit Poll + Fraud component


Senate:

Projected GOP LV (Recorded) Share (CNN/Time RV & LV):
LV Poll Projection = 49.5 = 46.2 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 3.3%.

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 2 seats (Table 5).

Projected GOP House Vote Share:
Share = 53.3 = 50.9 + Fraud component
Fraud component = 2.4%

Assuming the RV projection represents the True Vote (zero fraud):
Each additional 1% vote-switch results in a GOP gain of 4 seats (Table 7).

Undecided Voters, Turnout and Election Fraud

In 1988, 11 million votes were uncounted; in 2000, 6 million; in 2004, 4 million; in 2006, 3 million.

In 2004, 2006 and 2008, projections based on final pre-election LV polls closely matched fraudulent recorded vote count shares. Projections based on the final pre-election RV polls closely matched the unadjusted exit polls. Undecided voters typically break heavily for the challenger. In each of the last three elections, the Democrats were the challengers, but many pollsters did not allocate accordingly. Democratic voter turnout was underestimated by the pre-election LV polls (see2004FinalPre-electionPolls).bit.ly/d2yEQhbit.ly/claROebit.ly/aW4gYX

Final exit polls are always "forced" to match the recorded vote count, (i.e. the final pre-election LV polls). The underlying assumption is that the recorded vote count is correct (i.e. zero fraud). In 2004 and 2008, the Final National Exit Polls required an impossible turnout of returning Bush voters (110% and 103%, respectively). In the 2004 Final NEP (13660 respondents), the Bush vote shares were increased dramatically over the 12:22am Preliminary NEP (1% MoE, 13047 respondents). For 2008, the NEP media consortium of news outlets FOX, CNN, AP, ABC, CBS and NBC has suppressed results of fifty-one unadjusted-state and three un-forced preliminary-national exit polls.bit.ly/bAc6OKbit.ly/amsJiBbit.ly/bRhlz4bit.ly/diYEJ5bit.ly/a2j7xlbit.ly/bsL7lkbit.ly/dfIPTI

Once again, as in every election cycle, the media avoids the real issues. Martha Coakley won the hand-counts in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedys seat but lost to Scott Brown; Vic Rawl won the absentee vote but lost to unknown Alvin Greene in the South Carolina Democratic Senate primary; Mike Castle won the absentee ballots but lost to Christine O'Donnell in the Delaware GOP Senate primary. But there has not been a peep about any of this in the mainstream media. Apparently, we must just accept the conventional wisdom that even though the votes have vanished in cyberspace and can never be verified, they were not tampered with. The media lockdown is not limited to past stolen elections. The MSM prepares us for election fraud by listing final pre-election LV polls and ignoring RV polls.



Table 1
2010 Midterms: Senate and House Forecast Model
Senate Forecast Simulation Summary


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/se... bit.ly/azDXlw

08-Oct
Simulation Forecast
Expected Seats
Poll Type
RV&LV
Net Gain
Win Prob

OnlyLV
Net Gain
Win Prob
Count
37



37
Dem
52.9
-
100.0%

49.8
-
90.5%
GOP
45.3
4.3
0.0%

48.4
7.4
12.0%
Ind
2



2


Weighted Avg

RV&LV
OnlyLV
Unwtd Avg
RV
LV



37
37

16
16
Poll Share
Projection
Dem
45.3%
43.5%

48.3%
46.3%
GOP
44.3%
47.2%

40.6%
45.2%
Dem
50.5%
48.1%

53.8%
50.5%
GOP
49.5%
51.9%

46.2%
49.5%



ASSUMPTIONS
Fraud
MoE
UVA
Base Case
0.0%
4.0%
50.0%

Vote-share deviation to GOP, 1988-2004
Poll margin of error
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP






Seats
Current

Dem
57

GOP
41

Ind
2


Projection (table)
Seats
RV&LV
LV

RV&LV
Flip to
Lean
Safe
Tossup

Dem
54
50


1
1
10
6

GOP
44
48


4
4
16
0





NOTES:
Average of a 200 election trial simulation
Probability of winning a 50 senate seat majority

08-Oct
*tossup
Poll Type
Poll Share %
Dem %
Projection Share (%)
GOP
Within






AK
AL
AR
AZ
CA

CO
CT
DE
FL
GA

HI
IA
ID
IL
IN

KS
KY
LA
MD
MO

NC
ND
NH
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
OK
OR
PA

SC
SD
UT
WA
VT

WI
WV

37
37


Held By
R
R
D
R
D

D*
D
D
R
R

D
R
R
D*
D

R
R*
R
D
R

R
D
R
D
D

D
R
R
D
D*

R
R
R
D*
D

D*
D

RV&LV

OnlyLV






RV

RV
RV
RV
RV





RV



RV


RV




RV
RV

RV
RV


RV




RV


RV
RV
Dem
45.3
43.5



27
30
39
37
56

47
56
61
31
34

68
37
27
42
34

27
46
33
54
39

36
25
44
43
60

67
42
24
54
45

30
30
25
48
64

45
45
GOP
44.3
47.2



35
59
53
51
37

44
37
32
38
52

20
55
64
38
50

67
46
54
38
50

49
69
51
32
33

39
49
67
37
45

70
70
52
44
29

48
38
Dem
50.5
48.1



46.0
35.5
43.0
43.0
59.5

51.5
59.5
64.5
46.5
41.0

74.0
41.0
31.5
52.0
42.0

30.0
50.0
39.5
58.0
44.5

43.5
28.0
46.5
55.5
63.5

64.0
46.5
28.5
58.5
50.0

30.0
30.0
36.5
52.0
67.5

48.5
53.5
GOP
49.5
51.9



58.0
64.5
57.0
57.0
40.5

48.5
40.5
37.5
53.5
59.0

26.0
59.0
68.5
48.0
58.0

71.0
50.0
60.5
42.0
55.5

56.5
72.0
54.0
44.5
36.5

36.0
53.5
71.5
41.5
50.0

70.0
70.0
63.5
47.0
32.5

49.0
51.0
Win Prob
0.0%
9.5%



98%
100%
100%
100%
0%

23%
0%
0%
96%
100%

0%
100%
100%
16%
100%

100%
50%
100%
0%
100%

100%
100%
96%
0%
0%

0%
96%
100%
0%
50%

100%
100%
100%
16%
0%

77%
4%
Flip
5





GOP













GOP


Dem





GOP
















GOP


MoE
11



AK





CO


FL





IL



KY






NH




OH


PA




WA


WI
WV


Table 1a
Registered vs Likely Voters

CNN/TIME
.95 correlation ratio between RV and LV margins
























16
Polls
Average
Win

CA
CO
CT
DE
FL

IL
KY
MO
NV
NY1

NY2
OH
PA
WA
WI
WV
RV Full Sample
Dem
48.31
9

56
47
56
61
31

42
46
39
43
60

67
42
45
48
45
45
Rep
40.63
4

37
44
37
32
38

38
46
50
32
33

39
49
45
44
48
38
Margin
7.69
5

19
3
19
29
(7)

4
0
(11)
11
27

28
(7)
0
4
(3)
7
LV subsample
Dem
46.25
7

52
44
54
57
31

43
42
40
40
55

57
42
44
51
44
44
Rep
45.19
8

43
49
44
38
42

42
49
53
42
41

41
51
49
43
52
44
Margin
1.06
(1)

9
(5)
10
19
(11)

1
(7)
(13)
(2)
14

16
(9)
(5)
8
(8)
0
50% of RV-LV
Dem
47.28
8

54.0
45.5
55.0
59.0
31.0

42.5
44.0
39.5
41.5
57.5

62.0
42.0
44.5
49.5
44.5
44.5
Rep
42.91
7

40.0
46.5
40.5
35.0
40.0

40.0
47.5
51.5
37.0
37.0

40.0
50.0
47.0
43.5
50.0
41.0
Margin
4.38
1

14.0
(1.0)
14.5
24.0
(9.0)

2.5
(3.5)
(12.0)
4.5
20.5

22.0
(8.0)
(2.5)
6.0
(5.5)
3.5



Table 1b
Sensitivity Analysis: RV vs. LV Polls

Effect of LV-excluded RV Turnout and Vote Switch on Democratic Seats


15 polls
Turnout of LV-excluded Registered Voters (RV- LV)

0%
25%
50%
75%
100%

Democratic Senate Wins


Vote Switch
% to GOP


None
1%
2%
3%
4%
7
6
6
6
5
9
6
6
6
5
9
9
7
5
5
10
9
8
6
5
10
10
7
7
6


Table 2
Probability Distribution of GOP Net Gains (refer to source)


Table 3
Projection Trend (refer to source)


Table 4
GOP Senate Seat Forecast

Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Poll Type(refer to source)


Table 5
GOP Forecast Sensitivity to Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote Switch

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection (zero fraud)

RV&LV
RV/LV Undecided Vote Allocation to GOP

40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

3
Net Senate Seat Gain



Vote
Switch
to GOP
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
3
4
5
7
7
3
5
6
7
8
3
5
6
8
9
5
5
8
9
9
5
7
9
9
10

44
GOP Total Senate Seats






0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
44
45
46
48
48
44
46
47
48
49
44
46
47
49
50
46
46
49
50
50
46
48
50
50
51


Table 6
House Generic Ballot Forecasting Model
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/generic_c...


PROJECTIONUVA
50%
50%
CURRENTSEATS
178
255


Latest
POLL AVERAGE
PROJECTED 2-PARTY %
Projected Seats
3% MoE GOP

Model
LV
RV

Total

2010
LV
RV
A

Total
Polls
22
15

37

Polls
70
90
3

163
GOP
47.5
45.9

46.8

GOP
45.9
45.2
40.0

45.4
Dem
40.9
44.0

42.2

Dem
39.1
43.7
43.3

41.7
Spread
6.5
1.9

4.6

Spread
6.7
1.5
(3.3)

3.7
GOP
53.3
50.9

52.3

GOP
53.4
50.7
48.3

51.8
Dem
46.7
49.1

47.7

Dem
46.6
49.3
51.7

48.2
Margin
6.5
1.9

4.6

Margin
6.7
1.5
(3.3)

3.7
GOP
234
223

229

GOP
234
223
212

227
Dem
201
212

206

Dem
201
212
223

208
WinProb
98%
73%

94%

WinProb
99%
69%
14%

88%


Table 7
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:
# of GOP House Seats

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:50% UVA to GOPZeroVote-switch % to GOP

Projections
Undecided Voter Allocation to GOP

40%
45%
50%
55%
60%

224
GOP House Seats


Vote Switch
% to GOP
No Fraud
1%
2%
3%
219
223
228
232
221
226
230
234
223
228
232
237
226
230
234
239
228
232
237
241
Sensitivity Analysis, GOP House Forecast:
Probability of GOP winning a House Majority

Undecided Voter Allocation and Vote-Switch increments applied to RV poll projection

Base case assumptions:50% UVA to GOPZeroVote-switch % to GOP

(refer to source)




Table 8
Latest Generic Polls

PROJECTIONUVA
50%
50%

POLL
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP
10-POLL MOVING AVERAGEGOP
GOP

Pollster
FOX News
Reuters/Ipsos
Zogby
Bloomberg
Rasmussen Reports

Gallup
Gallup
CNN/Opinion Research
CNN/Opinion Research
CBS News/NY Times

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
Gallup
(sourcefor more)
Date
10/11 - 10/13
10/7 - 10/11
10/7 - 10/10
10/7 - 10/10
10/4 - 10/10

9/30 - 10/10
9/30 - 10/10
10/5 - 10/7
10/5 - 10/7
10/1- 10/5

10/2 - 10/4
9/30 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
9/27 - 10/3
...
Sample
687
720
2071
721
3500

3000
1953
938
504
na

867
669
3500
1882
3000
...
Type
LV
LV
LV
LV
LV

RV
LV
RV
LV
LV

LV
LV
LV
LV
RV
...
GOP
48
48
45
40
47

47
53
47
52
45

49
49
45
53
46
...
Dem
39
44
45
42
39

44
41
47
45
37

43
43
42
40
43
...
Spread
9
4
0
(2)
8

3
12
0
7
8

6
6
3
13
3
GOP
54.5
52.0
50.0
49.0
54.0

51.5
56.0
50.0
53.5
54.0

53.0
53.0
51.5
56.5
51.5
...
Dem
45.5
48.0
50.0
51.0
46.0

48.5
44.0
50.0
46.5
46.0

47.0
47.0
48.5
43.5
48.5
...
Margin
9.0
4.0
0.0
(2.0)
8.0

3.0
12.0
0.0
7.0
8.0

6.0
6.0
3.0
13.0
3.0
...
Seats
239
228
219
215
237

226
246
219
235
237

232
232
226
248
226
...
WinProb
100%
90%
50%
26%
100%

84%
100%
50%
99%
100%

98%
98%
84%
100%
84%
...
GOP
52.45
52.30
52.33
52.67
52.94

53.22
53.22
52.28
52.56
52.25

52.30
52.25
51.68
52.00
51.68
...
Dem
47.55
47.70
47.67
47.33
47.06

46.78
46.78
47.72
47.44
47.75

47.70
47.75
48.32
48.00
48.32
...
Margin
4.9
4.6
4.7
5.3
5.9

6.4
6.4
4.6
5.1
4.5

4.6
4.5
3.4
4.0
3.4
...
Seats
230
229
230
231
232

233
233
229
231
229

229
229
227
228
227
...


Table 9
Pollster Averages

POLL AVERAGE
GOP
PROJECTED 2-PARTY SHARE
GOP
GOP

Polling Firm
Rasmussen Reports
Gallup
FOX News
CNN/Opinion Research
PPP (D)

Democracy Corps (D)
ABC News/Wash Post
Ipsos/McClatchy
Quinnipiac
Pew Research

USA Today/Gallup
Newsweek
Reuters/Ipsos
GWU/Battleground
Time

McLaughlin & Associates (R)
Associated Press/GfK
POS (R)
Bloomberg
National Journal/FD

Washington Post
Zogby
NPR
McClatchy/Marist
CBS News/NY Times

Non-Rasmussen
Count
39
35
14
11
8

8
6
4
4
4

3
3
4
3
2

2
2
2
2
1

1
1
1
1
2

124
Sample
3500
1563
885
861
784

869
na
913
1977
na

970
889
868
1000
915

1000
445
850
798
1200

na
2071
800
815
na

1018
MoE
1.7%
2.5%
3.3%
3.3%
3.5%

3.3%
3.0%
3.2%
2.2%
3.0%

3.1%
3.3%
3.3%
3.1%
3.2%

3.1%
4.6%
3.4%
3.5%
2.8%

3.0%
2.2%
3.5%
3.4%
3.0%

3.0%
GOP
45.2
46.7
43.3
49.0
44.3

46.4
47.7
43.5
41.3
43.8

46.0
43.7
46.3
43.7
42.5

42.0
51.0
43.5
44.0
35.0

44.0
45.0
44.0
47.0
42.5

44.7
Dem
37.1
44.8
38.7
45.5
42.5

44.0
44.7
44.8
39.0
45.3

45.3
46.0
44.8
41.7
40.0

36.0
44.0
40.5
41.0
39.0

48.0
45.0
39.0
45.0
37.5

43.2
Spread
8.1
2.0
4.6
3.5
1.8

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
1.5
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
0.0
5.0
2.0
5.0

1.5
GOP
54.1
51.0
52.3
51.8
50.9

51.2
51.5
49.4
51.1
49.3

50.3
48.8
50.8
51.0
51.3

53.0
53.5
51.5
51.5
48.0

48.0
50.0
52.5
51.0
52.5

50.7
Dem
45.9
49.0
47.7
48.2
49.1

48.8
48.5
50.6
48.9
50.8

49.7
51.2
49.3
49.0
48.8

47.0
46.5
48.5
48.5
52.0

52.0
50.0
47.5
49.0
47.5

49.3
Margin
8.1
2.0
4.6
3.5
1.8

2.4
3.0
(1.3)
2.3
(1.5)

0.7
(2.3)
1.5
2.0
2.5

6.0
7.0
3.0
3.0
(4.0)

(4.0)
0.0
5.0
2.0
5.0

1.5
Seats
237
224
229
227
223

225
226
217
224
216

221
214
223
224
225

232
235
226
226
211

211
219
230
224
230

223
WinProb
100%
74%
93%
88%
72%

78%
84%
34%
77%
31%

59%
22%
69%
74%
79%

98%
99%
84%
84%
10%

10%
50%
95%
74%
95%

69%


Table 10
2006-2010 Registered and Likely Voter Poll Summary(refer to source)







If you believe that Kerry won in 2004 and that landslides were denied in 2006 and 2008, then you must also believe that the ...

If you believe that Bush won fairly in 2004 and the Democratic landslides of 2006 and 2008 were not denied, then you must believe that the ...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 02:01 AM
Response to Original message
1. Bullshit.
To believe this, you have to believe that EVERY SINGLE POLLING OUTFIT, along with EVERY MEDIA OUTLET, as well as all of the DEMOCRATIC internal pollsters, are all in one big conspiracy to cover up widespread election fraud that THOUSANDS of people would have to know about, and nobody has ever mentioned it?

Hell, conducting a poll isn't really that hard: get on the phone and ask 1,000 people who they want to control congress, and how enthusiastic they are about voting, then do the math.

Creating conspiracy theories about how it's all a big setup is an even bigger waste of time and energy. If you want to have an effect on the elections, get the fuck out there and get out the vote.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
WCGreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. I totally agree...
I was on the Board of elections here in Cuyahoga County and people think there are problems in every election. It's just not that easy to do. There was a blip in one precinct in 2004 that was quickly fixed and that signaled that the whole election in Cuyahoga county was corrupted.

It didn't matter that the blip was a totaling error and not with the individual precincts, people still insisted that Kerry was robbed.

Never mind that in Cuyahoga County, Kerry performed within historical parentages, that one blip gave people something to grasp onto.

There are just too many checks and balances, too many eyes on the process and the data to pull off major voting fraud. Too many people are involved.

They literally had to bully the people and get a huge hand from Lieberman in order to pull of the Florida thing.

Anyway, it's interesting stuff to play with numbers but in the long run, most perceived fraud is just that, perceived.

Still, I am concerned about paperless trails which is why I strongly urge people to use absentee balloting whenever possible. That leaves a trail that can be followed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 12:06 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. BOE, Cuyahoga Cty: "not that easy to do." Bill Bored, DU: "The clever way to rig an election is to

...switch the votes as they are cast, at the precinct, on election day, as we know occurred in Cuyaghoga County, Ohio using paper ballots (punch cards in that case), ballot order rotation within the poll sites, DREs, etc., programmed to do so BEFORE the election..."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 01:10 PM
Response to Reply #9
15. in how many polling places in Cuyahoga County?
I don't think Bill Bored was suggesting that ballot rotation was used to rig the 2004 election. There are a handful of cases in Cuyahoga County where Kerry votes obviously were counted for other candidates, but good luck extrapolating either a conspiracy or a large impact on the vote totals. Or, I should say, good luck supporting it with actual data.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 12:49 PM
Response to Reply #2
10. "In direct violation of federal election law, 56 of 88 counties have since destroyed all or
http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5443#comment-275360

...or part of their 2004 election data.

=============================

On December 14, 2007, Bob Fitrakis & Harvey Wasserman reported that the Ohio Secretary of State confirmed that the 2004 election could have been stolen:

Ohio's Secretary of State announced this morning that a $1.9 million official study shows that "critical security failures" are embedded throughout the voting systems in the state that decided the 2004 election. Those failures, she says, "could impact the integrity of elections in the Buckeye State." They have rendered Ohio's vote counts "vulnerable" to manipulation and theft by "fairly simple techniques." Indeed, she says, "the tools needed to compromise an accurate vote count could be as simple as tampering with the paper audit trail connector or using a magnet and a personal digital assistant." In other words, Ohio's top election official has finally confirmed that the 2004 election could have been easily stolen.
-----
The final official tally for Bush---less than 119,000 votes out of 5.4 million cast---varied by 6.7% from exit poll results, which showed a Kerry victory. Exit polls in 2004 were designed to have a margin of error of about 1%.

In various polling stations in Democrat-rich inner city precincts in Youngstown and Columbus, voters who pushed touch screens for Kerry saw Bush's name light up. A wide range of discrepancies on both electronic and paper balloting systems leaned almost uniformly toward the Bush camp. Voting procedures regularly broke down in inner city and campus areas known to be heavily Democratic.

In direct violation of standing federal election law, 56 of 88 counties have since destroyed all or part of their 2004 election data.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 02:18 PM
Response to Reply #2
17. ".. Cuyahoga BOE has a record of lying, secrecy and disdain for public opinion, pushing thru Diebold



Help bring democracy to Cuyahoga County! from Vicki Lovegren

"... Cuyahoga BOE has a record of lying, secrecy and disdain for public opinion, pushing through Diebold (Premier Solutions) e-voting despite overwhelming public opposition, denying public records and access, among other things...."

Victoria Lovegren, Ph.D.
CWRU Mathematics Faculty
Founder, Ohio Vigilance (www.ohiovigilance.org )
Organizer, We Count 2006 (www.wecount2006.org )
Board Member, Common Cause Ohio
Board Member, Election Defense Alliance
Board Member, Northern Ohio American Friends Service Committee Economic Justice and Empowerment Program
Member, Ohio Democracy Project
Programmer, WRUW FM 91.1 (Democracy NOW! and And Everybody Is Okay With This?)
P.S. Lucas County is another county who will NOT post results. We need a team of naggers / capturers there as well.
FYI. Lake County, Franklin County, and a number of others WILL be posting their results. Dennis Kucinichs H.B. 6200 will require posting of election results at the polling place




Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 03:31 PM
Response to Reply #2
18. How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes -- Cuyahoga County Analysis (publ 2008)

The 2004 Ohio Presidential Election - Cuyahoga County Analysis
How Kerry Votes Were Switched To Bush Votes*
by James Q. Jacobs


Simply put, Ohio votes were NOT all counted as cast. Many votes were miscounted, and Kerry votes were counted for Bush. Numerous questions have been raised about the fairness of the 2004 Presidential election in the United States of America (US). In this study I focus on one election issue, punch card cross-voting how votes cast one way were counted other than as intended, as a vote for a different candidate or option. Punch card voting has been replaced and, with so many election issues, this most egregious of flawscounting votes wronghas seemingly been overshadowed by e-voting and reform concerns. I also focus on a particular region with one-tenth of the Ohio vote, Cuyahoga County, where recount crimes have detracted from miscounting the vote. The 2004 recount issue focused attention away from cross-voting. Cross-votes recount the same and, hence, are an entirely distinct issue.

In 2000, the US post-election focus was on Florida, on fairness of punch card voting, on vote count accuracy, and on incomplete counting. In 2004, Ohio's failure to replace punch card voting with improved systems is just one of many issues raised with regard to the Ohio 2004 Presidential election. Other Ohio fairness, fraud, and irregularity issues include politicization of process, voter registration fraud, voter purging and suppression including racial discrimination and unfair voting machine distribution, the exit poll inaccuracy, electronic voting security, paperless e-voting, e-vote flipping, the high percentage of and unequal distribution of undervotes, uncounted provisional ballots, vote count secrecy, recount crimes and irregularities, and official loss of and/or destruction of evidence.

This article and the appendices combine, with additional material, earlier versions cited in academic references. In a separate file, I present a 2004 Ohio Presidential Election Results Summary and various Ohio datasets.

Seven-eighths of voters in heavily-Democratic Cuyahoga County, more than one of every eight
Ohio Kerry voters, could have cross-voted at an adjacent precinct using the wrong ballot order.

...

*ed note: links for "counting" and" recount crimes" and emphasis have been added and are not those of the author. Refer to title link for original content and format


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 06:45 AM
Response to Reply #1
4. LOL
If the polls are fixed and Democrats are doing just fine why are the Democrats using a triage system to decide which races to fund and which races not to fund:




http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2010/10/16/201...




THIS CRAP IS EMBARRASSING.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bitwit1234 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. How can you explain
the fact that the Ohio totals in 2004 were so out of kilter. And how did the republicans get to route their ballot counting thru the Bush white house servers overseen by Rove. I agree that ever single electronic box can not be fraud. But I do believe that in certain areas where there is republican control LIKE IN OHIO IN 2004, fraud and programming of the ballot boxes ran rampant. No one is going to pooh pooh that for me, after all the investigation of the Ohio electronic voting machines. And that was on the ones that were allowed. How about all those electronic totals on boxes, Blackwell locked away in warehouses and wouldn't let the public check.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GoCubsGo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
7. Yep, and explain Alvin Greene, too.
His opponent won the absentee ballots in pretty much every precinct with 60-70% of the vote. In every case, the non-absentee votes had Greene winning by those same margins. Stinky, stinky, stinky.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 09:53 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Does That Mean
Does that mean almost every major pollster is in on the conspiracy and are greasing the skids for a Republucan win and nobody is talking.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Iwasthere Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:16 AM
Response to Reply #7
22. WAKE UP PEOPLE
Explain the Alvin Greene vote swap. It has been clearly proven that votes can be easily flipped, especially in close races. Kerry won, he gave up too soon, I will NEVER forgive him for that. Why have so many in here forgotten the crazy anomolies?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:07 AM
Response to Reply #22
26. what Alvin Greene vote swap?
The data don't suggest vote-swapping at all. In general, where Greene did best (worst) in the absentee vote, he also did best (worst) in the non-absentee vote. It's not surprising that Rawl did relatively better in the absentee vote, where people had time to look up who these candidates were if they wanted. Even there, Greene did very well.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:30 AM
Response to Reply #7
29. actually not
His opponent won the absentee ballots in pretty much every precinct with 60-70% of the vote. In every case, the non-absentee votes had Greene winning by those same margins.

If that were true, it would be very strong circumstantial evidence that the absentee vote, as well as the non-absentee vote, was rigged. It would be quite bizarre for vote shares across an entire state to vary so little.

However, it isn't true at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tritsofme Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 06:56 AM
Response to Original message
5. Haha, this is obviously the only reasonable explanation.
I can't think of any other reasons that polls would match the actual result on election night, besides a massive conspiracy involving every polling outfit in America!

The absurdity of this guy's delusion just becomes more and more entertaining.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. I Would Think At Some Point Friends And Family Would Stage An Intervention
Or at least the moderators.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
11. Richard Charnin (below) relaxing with young friend.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #11
14. Your Mean
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deaniac21 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. You're
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Victorina Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 12:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. Why haven't the DNC or Obama expressed concern about this big conspiracy?
If this were true, wouldn't the affected parties be investigating and complaining?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 01:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. Maybe Because They Are In On It
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
33. Democrats historically don't pay attention to election problems... or potential ones.

This despite their "voter protection" plans and committees.

I was one of the 9 regional coordinators for the 2004 Ohio Recount. Spent most of December 2004 on the ground in Ohio, where I saw many GOP observers, in every county, along with the Green & Libertarian observers who had nothing to gain but helping to find the truth. But the whole time I was there I saw only one (1) Democratic Party observer in one (1) county, a scared-looking twentyish kid who never opened his mouth.

Ah, but at least we Dems never looked like sore losers........

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 05:57 PM
Response to Original message
19. So is there any way to measure the "accuracy" of the cutoff between RVs and LVs,
Edited on Mon Oct-18-10 06:11 PM by bleever
or is it even possible without making a circular argument?

Or is that the point of the whole design?

The LVCM assigns a weight of zero to all respondents falling below the cutoff, eliminating them from the sample. But these potential voters have more than a zero probability of voting. The number of "Yes" answers required to qualify as a likely voter is set based on how the pollster wants the sample to turn out. The more Republicans the pollster wants in the sample, the more "Yes" answers are required. This serves to eliminate many Democrats and skews the sample to the GOP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 09:37 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Consider any RV sample N == 100% of the electorate.


In the LVCM Scores from 1-to-7 are given for answers to a set of questions pertinent to characteristics of a "Likely Voter".

A distribution of scores within the sample N determines, for example, that a total score of X1 corresponds to 60% of the electorate "making the cut", a score X2 to 65%, X3-->70%...X4-->75%...X5==80% etc. etc

The Pollster then presumably makes a "projection" of the turnout for the November election. The basis for that projection seems rather arbitrary, a mere guess (or maybe a preference of perhaps a "target" for fraud-dependent pollster?). But, if he does as political analyst Bruce Gyory did in 2008, just days before the election, he might investigate EARLY-VOTER turnout. High % Turnout of the electorate favors Dems. Gyory, upon seeing that numbers from certain states were relatively very high, warned other analysts in an Oct 29 2008 Newsday article (which is linked to in Charnin's TRUE MATH post, but shortly thereafter became "unavailable", and still is, at Newsday's website) to "forget about the LV polls" (which exclude by "LV"-criteria a high proportion of Dems va Reps) and, instead, to heed the RV poll samples for projecting Obama's share accurately. Not many did, and 131 million turned out to vote, 89% of the Electorate! That's a lot.

How to analyze the accuracy?

THe US CENsus Bureau does a post election survey NOT asking WHO one voted for, merely "Did you vote?" (and how: "In Person"? "By Mail"?)

But, whereas the Natinal exit poll in 2004 polled 13,047 random-selected exiting voters and in 2008 more than 17,000, both reflective of a less than 1% Margin of Error, the Census Bureau interviews 70,000 people and determines with an accuracy of 0.3% MoE the size of the voting age population that actually voted (at a 90% confidence level).

You can tell how "accurate" the average pollster "projection" (i.e. "guestimate") was by comparing the average of the sizes of their LV samples relative to the RV samples from which they "qualified" as "Likely VOters".

TruthIsAll shows an example of determining the accuracy of an aggregation of 5 pollsters's LV subsamples and their corresponding RV full samples for 2004.

You can see them here, by scrolling down to the 2004 Pre-electionn Poll sections.

The Census Bureau figure of "Turnout" (88.5%, link provided) can be compared to the aggregated pollster's LV size as a % of the aggregated RV samples (See "Projected Turnout"). THE CEnsus BUreau also gives an absolute figure of "Votes Cast". The difference between the Census Votes Cast and the Recorded Vote COunt is, natually, the "Uncounted VOtes".

Anyway, have a look.

You'll see in Charnin's FOrecast Model that CNN/TIme provides 16 RV samples with LV subsamples. The % of the LV size compared to corresponding RV size == the current Projection IF THE ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY.

I believe Gallup's current LV to RV sample sizes is 1883/3000 == 62.8 % projected turnout...for Gallup...at this time.

A feature of the preelection polling scam as unfolding is the gradual DISAPPEARANCE of the RV Samples.

And, Rasmussen, the Republican affiliated pollster who's polls shows 8.1% margin advantage for GOP vs 1.8% against 124 others, DOESN'T PROVIDE RV SAMPLES AT ALL!!! We can't even say if his "LV" samples are drawn from a RV sample "representative" of the electorate.

But the GOP Election Fraud System must surely appreciate Rasmussen, for the margin of "Cover" he affords *pre-election* for their fraud manipulation on election day and the post-election ultimate cover-up of the "Forced" Final exit polls.

Read about the RV and LV polls in Charnin's 10-15 post.

tt



TruthIsAll actually did a beautiful analysis of the candidate shares among the "Unlikley to Vote"


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:27 AM
Response to Reply #21
28. well, I suppose he has a book to sell
The Pollster then presumably makes a "projection" of the turnout for the November election.

Presumably? :shrug:

I sort of admire TIA's approach. "Don't sweat the small stuff, and it's all small stuff, as long as the answer turns out the way I like."

So, what do the Current Population Survey data indicate about turnout among registered voters age 18-24?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #28
31. Question
What good are polls of registered voters this close to an election when we know that many registered voters do not vote?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:33 PM
Response to Reply #31
37. in fairness, it depends on how one thinks about it
If one thinks about it like TIA, nothing good can happen, because the conclusions are predetermined.

If one has a more open-minded approach, then the RV results offer one (admittedly crude) way of assessing the extent of uncertainty introduced because we don't know who will actually vote.

In the final 2008 pre-election Pew poll (which is nice because it's big, it includes cell phone users, and the data can be downloaded), Obama had about a 6-point margin among LVs and a 10-point margin among RVs. There is really no way to tell, but it seems quite possible that Pew's LV screen was a bit hard on Obama voters. I mean, a bit. For instance, if I did the numbers right, Pew had folks 18-24 as 11.8% of their registered voter sample (applying their demographic weights) and 9.0% of their LV sample; according to the CPS, the correct percentage was 9.5%. That's pretty damn good, but it's possible that if they had made it a bit easier for those folks to clear the LV hurdle, they would have gotten even closer to Obama's margin, which was 7.3% in the official returns.

Similarly, in TruthIsAll Thought, it seems to be axiomatic that unintentional undervotes and overvotes, uncounted absentee and provisional ballots, and outright miscounts systematically cheat Democratic candidates of millions of votes. If one is actually curious about the question, it's very hard to estimate the net impact of such problems, but it probably isn't zero.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 11:57 PM
Response to Reply #31
38. Controversy re the polls."...Abromowitz has challenged basically all of the 'likely voter' scenarios

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

The Polls are showing terrible results for the Democrats.

What has gone unreported is that there is a very significant controversy in the polling community about the polls this year.

The controversy concerns who is going to show up to vote and who is a "likely voter".

Generic and race specific polls continue to show Democrats with wide margins with 'registered voters' but close or behind with 'likely voters".

For example Sharon Angle is shown as winning in Nevada with only 32% of 'registered voters' which seems unlikely.

The normally polite fraternity of pollsters has become a donnybrook as polling experts are taking off the gloves and questiioning the premise that these polls are based on. Here is the latest offering from the respected Pollster.com editor

- more at link -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 06:03 AM
Response to Reply #38
39. that's wildly misleading
(Incidentally, it is good form to place extended quotations in a box so that their provenance is clear.)

It's true that Abramowitz thinks the recent Gallup result of Republicans +17 in the generic House "contest" among likely voters is implausible -- and it doesn't jibe with polls of individual contests. And I suppose one could say that Abramowitz has "challenged" likely voter scenarios in the sense that he wouldn't counsel blind trust in any of them. But I haven't seen him challenge likely voter models in general. Last month he wrote:

According to data compiled by the Gallup Poll, in 13 midterm elections between 1950 and 2006 for which relevant data were available, the average gap between the preferences of registered and likely voters was 5 points. Only once, in 2002, did the gap reach double digits. In that year Democrats had a 5 point lead among registered voters but Republicans led by 6 points among likely voters. However, the gap in party preference between registered and likely voters did reach 9 points in 1962 and 8 points in both 1974 and 1982 and in every one of these years, the preferences of Gallup's likely voters were closer to the actual election margin than the preferences of registered voters. In fact, across all 13 midterm elections, the Democratic margin among likely voters differed from the actual Democratic margin in the national popular vote by an average of only 2.1 percentage points while the Democratic margin among registered voters differed from the actual Democratic margin by an average of 6.5 percentage points.


I don't think you'll find any evidence that Abramowitz is "questioning the premise that these polls are based on," whether it be Gallup's or anyone else's. Pollsters and analysts do, of course, argue about likely voter models -- but that isn't the same as denying that likely voter models are useful. That's sort of like arguing that climate scientists can't agree on a correct climate model, and therefore we should ignore them all.

I'm puzzled by this: "Generic and race specific polls continue to show Democrats with wide margins with 'registered voters' but close or behind with 'likely voters'." There must be some races for which that statement would be true, but the last Gallup generic poll showed Republicans +5 among registered voters. NBC/WSJ had Democrats +2 among registered voters, Republicans +7 among likely voters. A bit earlier, Fox had R+2 among registered voters, R+9 among likely voters. Reuters/Ipsos had R+2 and R+4, a much smaller difference. Democrats with a wide margin among registered voters? Not so much.

The underlying problem in arguing about generic ballots is that they exist only in surveys. Actual voters vote for candidates. There are people who will say they plan to vote for "the Republican candidate," but when it comes down to it, will vote for a Democratic incumbent they like. That's (probably) why Democrats would be expected to hold the House if they were breaking even in the generic polls. I suspect that generic polls are more subject to question order effects and subtle differences in wording.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Oct-20-10 06:34 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. Truth In All Starts From The Premise That The Republicans Could Never Win A Fair Election
Once you understand that everything he writes makes sense.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bleever Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:23 PM
Response to Reply #21
34. I hadn't considered the US Census post-election turnout survey;
I'll look forward to reading about that. Thanks for the detailed answer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RepublicanElephant Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-18-10 08:27 PM
Response to Original message
20. kick and rec'd nt
:kick:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Awsi Dooger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 02:12 AM
Response to Original message
23. Fraud is poised for a big year
More competitive races than typical. The party with the terrain advantage always wins more than its share of those, particularly in statewide races, and often counter to pre-election polling consensus.

Lots of ammo. Oh joy.

***

If there are exit polls, I'm wondering if the Shy Tory/Reluctant Bush Responder angle will hold up? This is the first time right wingers are on offense since '02, and willing to shout it. Even in '04 Bush was relatively unpopular and Democrats more vocal.

Oh sorry, the Reluctant theory was picked apart. Those early exit polls from 2004 were gospel, regardless if they resembled the state's partisanship at all. Headaches of yesteryear.

I'm glad TIA is apparently in good health. :)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 05:34 AM
Response to Reply #23
24. I Think The Democrats Won A Lot Of Close Races In 06
~
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
demodonkey Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:26 PM
Response to Reply #24
35. We had a lot more election integrity people and programs on the ground in 06....
Edited on Tue Oct-19-10 12:26 PM by demodonkey

Ah, but since then Obama won so no more danger of fraud. :sarcasm:

The problems with our voting systems have NOT gone away and a lot of people have gone to sleep at the wheel about it.

Many have dropped away from the so-called movement to protect and improve our elections, and among those who do bother to think about the dangers anymore, precious few care to drop a few bucks (or hours of help) on their local election integrity group to keep things going.

In the meantime, thanks to certain various 'activists' remaining, the paperless electronic voting machines still being used by millions of voters will be just FINE until we can get the "perfect" bill passed to remove them with 100% hand-counted paper ballots. :sarcasm:

Ye all just might end up reaping what ye have sown and you will have yourselves to thank.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:02 AM
Response to Reply #23
25. Awsi! good times!
Edited on Tue Oct-19-10 07:04 AM by OnTheOtherHand
Recently I looked at the Pew data from their 2008 final pre-election study, and saw that in the unweighted data, Bush retrospectively beat Kerry by almost 15 percentage points (14 points in the weighted data). That is, in the weighted data, among people who said they voted, about 53.5% said they voted for Bush, 39.5% for Kerry, 5% for someone else, and 2% couldn't remember. (That's not including the roughly 4% who refused to say who they voted for.) Tends to support my speculation a few years ago that this misreporting of past votes has little to do with the popularity of the incumbent, and a lot to do with the obscurity of the opponent. Relevant here because one of TIA's arguments depends on the assumption that people report past votes correctly, despite all the evidence that they don't.

I assume that TIA would find a way to blame this on cell phones, or something (although Pew called cell phones).

Did you notice how awful the 2008 exit polls were? For the exit poll fundies, there really is lots of evidence of widespread chronic fraud. It's too bad that so much of it makes so little sense given (as you say) what we know from multiple sources about various states' partisanship.

(Edit to clarify quirky rounding)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DemocratSinceBirth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:17 AM
Response to Reply #25
27. Isn't It Amazing How TipToe Is So Conversant With Truth Is All's Research
TipToe has to be the best student since Anna Freud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OnTheOtherHand Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 07:36 AM
Response to Reply #27
30. tiptoe is indeed exemplary in that respect
The responses to substantive criticism are sorely lacking, but considering the quality of TruthIsAll's "research," that is only to be expected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tiptoe Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #23
32. Fraud
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-19-10 12:27 PM
Response to Original message
36. Richard has no response for the FM factor
"Fucking Morons" are voting in droves.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat Oct 25th 2014, 03:37 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC